Failure to Yield

[gogirl]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

soo, i was driving and a school was coming up. there was a pedestrian who was walking across the crosswalk and then realized that her other children were still at the end. i stopped for her to walk to the center and then proceeded. i was pulled over and given this ticket. but i read online, i forgot where, something about yes the driver is suppose to yield but something about when it's clear for the driver the driver can proceed. i believe it was on another forum, but i can no longer find it. the fact that i did stop and she was on the other half of the crosswalk made me wonder after i read that. but if it is completely irreversible then i guess i have no other choice than to pay. but if anyone can offer any advice that would be great.

[EWYLTJ]

Well, if the kid in the crosswalk had already passed your lane and was on the other side of the road, you did yield. As for the kids not in the crosswalk yet, there was nothing to yield to as the code says you have to be in the crosswalk.

[gogirl]

ok good. well i have a another question. see if you can help. i looked on the ticket and the officer had put the wrong date but circled the right day. so would the ticket still be valid?? i asked some friends and they said that it can possibly be invalid becuase the officer did not follow the proper protocals. if you know the answer that would be great! thanks.

[EWYLTJ]

Take a look at some of the other fail to yield threads here. This is a common theme where a person gets a FTY ticket after yielding to a pedestrian, but is charged only because the pedestrian is still in the crosswalk. It is stupid, bogus and you should defend yourself in court. You should not be timid as your rights are being trampled without you even knowing it.

[That Guy]

A bit of a contradiction here...

the code says you have to be in the crosswalk.

Meaning if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk, a driver must yield (as in STOP before the crosswalk until the pedestrian is up on the curb... But then you say:

but is charged only because the pedestrian is still in the crosswalk. It is stupid, bogus...

Perfect example of why a driver must continue to yield until the pedestrian is OUT of the crosswalk (not just that particular lane) is in the first post of this thread... Lady crossed halfway, stopped, turned around and went back.

[EWYLTJ]

I won't even go into the stupidity of the assertion that I cannot yield to a pedestrian who is 50 feet away, walking in the opposite direction simply because they are still in the crosswalk. I think reasonable people can see what is obvious. However, by the simple minded reasoning of some cops (and some posters here), the definition of the word "yield" means that I would have to wait until there was no vehicles on the interstate before I "yielded" from an on-ramp.

[That Guy]

... stupidity of the assertion... the simple minded reasoning of some cops (and some posters here)...

Call it what you will. The contradiction of your interpretation is pretty obvious.

Furthermore, the definition of the word "yield" is not the argument here. The point is, the CVC simply says "a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection"... It doesn't say in the lane in front of you; it doesn't reference another lane in the road; nor does it mention your side of the street versus the other side. It simply says "pedestrian within a CROSSWALK"...

And even if your point was valid, can you be more specific as to when you, as a driver, should in fact be allowed to proceed? Is it after the pedestrians crosses past your lane? Past the center of the roadway? Or across on the other side?

Point is, which one of the following versions would you suggest should be the OP's point of contension here? "The center" of the roadway:

i stopped for her to walk to the center and then proceeded.

Or "the other half of the crosswalk":

...the fact that i did stop and she was on the other half of the crosswalk...

[EWYLTJ]

Call it what you will. The contradiction of your interpretation is pretty obvious.

There was absolutely NO contradiction in my interpretation

Furthermore, the definition of the word "yield" is not the argument here. The point is, the CVC simply says "a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection"... It doesn't say in the lane in front of you; it doesn't reference another lane in the road; nor does it mention your side of the street versus the other side. It simply says "pedestrian within a CROSSWALK"...

And even if your point was valid, can you be more specific as to when you, as a driver, should in fact be allowed to proceed? Is it after the pedestrians crosses past your lane? Past the center of the roadway? Or across on the other side?

The code actually says:

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.

What it does NOT say, is that the driver shall "STOP" while a pedestrian is in any part of the crosswalk. It doesn't say the driver "SHALL NOT PROCEED". It says "YIELD". So, the definition of the word yield IS the issue. The question is, if I am in the right lane of a six lane intersection and a pedestrian crosses from my right to left in front of me, do I have to wait for that person to get all the way to the other curb (i.e. 60+ feet away) before I proceed in order to have fulfilled my obligation to yield? Or, can I simply let the person pass me a reasonable distance and then go? I think any reasonable person would choose the latter. I think that's what the legislature had in mind also when it wrote the second part of the statute:

(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of
using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly
leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path
of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a
marked or unmarked crosswalk.

So, that pretty much blows out of the water the stupid argument of "what if the pedestrian decided to turn around and go back to the curb they left from?"

The legislature further clarifies in part "c":

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.

Notice it does NOT say "stop"!! It says "exercise all due care". Now, how can any reasonable person argue that the only way I can exercise all due care is for the pedestrian to get all the way across the street to the other curb? Can you imagine what that would do to traffic in a congested city?

This point has been argued several times before and I thought that the reasonable people of this site agreed that the statute does NOT require a pedestrian to be out of the crosswalk in order for the motorist to "yield". However, some people here just want to argue on the side of the state no matter how egregious their actions are.

[That Guy]

However, some people here just want to argue on the side of the state no matter how egregious their actions are.

This is a forum for "opinions". And just because someone else disagrees with yours does not by any means or description make their opinion stupid or unreasonable. Pretty typical of you though... Fact is, the only "unreasonable" thing here is that you "think" you are always right and that you "think" you know what the legislature's intent was when this statute was written.

Yes, this point has been debated many times before and yet, I am yet to read a single post suggesting that your interpretation has resulted in a single dismissal. (Fell free to post any links to any threads where that was the case). In the meantime, officers still cite drivers when a pedestrian is anywhere within the crosswalk, and judges still convict based upon those officers' testimony. And yes, I already know your answer to that... "crooked cops and incompetent judges"

[EWYLTJ]

This is a forum for "opinions". And just because someone else disagrees with yours does not by any means or description make their opinion stupid or unreasonable. Pretty typical of you though... Fact is, the only "unreasonable" thing here is that you "think" you are always right and that you "think" you know what the legislature's intent was when this statute was written.

Yes, this point has been debated many times before and yet, I am yet to read a single post suggesting that your interpretation has resulted in a single dismissal. (Fell free to post any links to any threads where that was the case). In the meantime, officers still cite drivers when a pedestrian is anywhere within the crosswalk, and judges still convict based upon those officers' testimony. And yes, I already know your answer to that... "crooked cops and incompetent judges"

I qualified my statements by refering to "reasonable" people. I wouldn't expect you to understand.